Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3057764" data-attributes="member: 32164">I'd like to think you were right. And, in one sense, I agree that I wish this challenge didn't work that way. But that gets into the whole problem I have with the "Usable X times per day" mechanic concept. Which doesn't make sense ANYWAY. I far prefer Mike Mearls elegant "token" system from Iron Heroes, which almost completely does away with "X times per day" abilities in favor of abilities that take so long to use, or can only be activated under certain circumstances, and so forth.So, other than the "per day" part of this ability, I have no problem with it.And I definitely take issue with the notion of "roleplay it" as a valid balancing agent. What if I, as the player of a character, decide to taunt the big bad villain into single combat, and the DM just doesn't want him to accept? Or what if the villain issues a challenge that my hero would find compelling, but since he's just a playing piece, I make a rational decision that supercedes the character's emotional reaction. Is either of those situations "fair?" Of course not.In the first case, it's "bad DMing," whereas in the second, it's "bad roleplaying." But the simple fact is that emotional appeals don't always work "right" in an RPG because we aren't the characters we play. Think of a villain who taunts your hero to attack by murdering all the people he loves and waving their decapitated heads in his face. The character would be pissed! Possibly, he'd be enraged "I'm going to rip your head off" pissed. The player...isn't. He MAY play that, but he may not.Similarly, if the DM has established that the villain is an egotistical SOB, and the player decides to taunt the villain into single combat to distract him, the DM may choose not to allow it. Why? Well, maybe the DM has a plot in mind and having his villain get provoked into combat isn't in his agenda. Like the player in the above example, the DM isn't necessarily going to react as the villain would.To me, disallowing abilities like this is like disallowing Willpower saves against non-supernatural issues on the basis that the player ought to decide how his character would react through roleplaying. The problem is that players aren't their characters, so there's always going to be a separation between their reactions and those of their characters. With good roleplayers, those situations come up less often, but having mechanics for the situation still helps.It's like the social interaction skills - a crutch for when roleplay doesn't properly cover the character's abilities. Sure, you still roleplay it, but if Joe the uneloquent gamer is playing Gareth the silver-tongued rogue, that bluff skill check is important. It makes up for an ability the player lacks, but the character has.And it fairly penalizes Tom the silver tongued player from making Thog, the halfwit barbarian smarter, wiser, or more charismatic than he should be. Otherwise, all personality skills are dump stats because they'll never be used in game.Okay...off my soap box. I do agree that the "per day" mechanic is wonky, though.</blockquote>

Verification